The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-25
THE ANARCHIST PLEA


The Supreme Court of the United States
will hear argument in the Anarchist cases on
Thursday The application being for writ
of error the court will hear argument both on
the point whether any question cognizable in
the Supreme Court was made and decided in
ton was. Attorney general Hunt, of Illinois,
will represent the State, and Prosecutor
Grinnell, of Chicago, will be present to assist
or advise as needed. The prompt action of
of the case, and its decision will doubtless
follow very closely on the argument. If the
court grants the writ it will operate stay
Of execution until such time as the case can
be taken up and reviewed, and many months
may elapse before a final decision is rendered.
If it declines to grant the writ the verdictand
sentence of the lower court will stand.
The application for the writ is based on two
grounds first, the alleged unconstitutionality
of the Illinois law, which provides that it
shall not be a cause of challenge that juror
has read in the newspapers an account of the
commission of the crime with which the pris-
oner is charged; nor shall the fact that juror
has formed opinion or impression, based
upon rumor or newspaper articles, disqualify
him, if he shall state upon oath that he be-
lieves he can fairly and impartally render a
verdict in accordance with the law and evil
dence and the court shall be satisfied Of the
truth of such statement Counsel for the
Anarchists maintain that this statute is in
conflict with the sixth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which pro-
vides that Sin all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed" etc. Il is claimed that the
jury which tried and convicted the Anarchists,
and which was made up under the Illinois
law, was not an impartial one. it is said one
of the counsel, Mr.. Tucker. holds that the
Illinois law also contravenes the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution, which says:
mo State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges immuni-
any State deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law,
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws"
Mr.. Tucker holds that the phrase educ
process of law" involves trial by jury, and
that this was practically denied the Anarch-
lists by the Illinois law above quoted. Both
of these contentious turn on the same point
viz, that man who has formed or expressed
an opinion in q case cannot be Gan impartial
juror" notwithstanding he may state, on oath,
that he believes he can render an impartial
verdict on the evidence. The Constitution of
Illinois provides that ''no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law" that 'the right of trial
by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain
inviolate." and that in criminal prosecutions
the accused shall have the right to ga speedy
public trial by impartial jury of the
county or district in which the offense is al
legged to have been committed" The Su-
preme Court of that State has already de-
cided that the law in regard to jurors is
simply a definition of what juror may be-,
and does not contravene these provisions Of
the State Constitution. It is not likely the
Supreme Court of the United States will take
a different view of the case, or hold that a
State has no right to make law defining the
qualifications of juror. New York has a
statute similar to that of Illinois relative to
the qualifications of jurors, and it has been
upheld by the New York Court of Appeals
One other point made by counsel for the
Anarchists is that they were compelled to be
witnesses against themselves, in contravention
of the fifth amendment to the Constitution,
in that their premises were searched and pa
pers and letters seized and used in evidence.
This claim is too absurd for serious considera-
ton, and will hardly be insisted upon in
argument.
The statement of these points shows their
finishes. They are technical far fetched,
unsubstantial, and without any support in
sound reason. We doubt if ever an argument
was made in the Supreme Court Of the United
States on weaker basis of logic, of law,
than this, and we believe the court will
promptly deny the application for writ of
error.
rnry on